Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v McMaster 2022 ONOCT 42

Date: 2022-04-14

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Gregory Scott McMaster, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GREGORY SCOTT MCMASTER (REGISTRATION #285301)

PANEL: Élaine Legault, Chair

Erin Durant

Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: April 14, 2022

Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Amin Nur, for Gregory Scott McMaster

Ahmad Mozaffari, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 14, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Gregory Scott McMaster (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 2, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Gregory Scott McMaster is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(f) he failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);³

(g) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(h) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

Gregory Scott McMaster is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algoma District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
At all material times, Person A and Person B were male teachers, Person C was a male Vice-Principal, and Person D was a female Vice-Principal at the School.
During the 2017-2018 academic year the Member would regularly swear and used inappropriate language in the classroom in front of students, including:

(a) yelling at students;

(b) “you didn’t get your fucking work done” or words to that effect;

(d) “fucking idiot”;

(e) “quit fucking around”;

(f) “fuck the dog”;

(g) “fuck”;

(h) “shut-up”;

(i) “ass”;

(j) “bullshit”;

(k) “assholes”;

(l) “shit”;

(m) “stupid”;

(n) “cunt”;

(o) “idiot”; and

(p) told a student that he would physically hit him it he did not “shut up”.

Several students felt uncomfortable with the Member’s use of inappropriate language at the School.
During the 2017-2018 academic year the Member was physically intimidating towards students. The Member was physical within the classroom causing some students to become fearful and uncomfortable. The Member behaved inappropriately in the classroom in front of students, including:

(a) the Member kicked a desk in the classroom when he became upset that a student had requested to complete a presentation at another time;

(b) on several occasions the Member slammed the classroom door;

(d) the Member threatened to throw a stapler at students and told students that he threw staplers at people before.

During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member failed to provide appropriate instruction, assessment, guidance and feedback to students in that he:

(a) provided minimal tests and assignments to students;

(b) failed to mark and return submitted tests and assignments to students; and

During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member used the School’s internet account and computer to engage in online shopping and personal activities during instructional time.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member made inappropriate comments to the students of the School regarding his colleagues and the administration, including:

(a) suggested that Person A was a “bad teacher”;

(b) told students that Person A’s teaching style was “garbage”, or words to that effect;

(d) told students how Person B could have done a better job in arranging an examination;

(e) questioned Person C’s ability to do his job;

(f) disagreed with ¾ of the rules in the School; and

(g) told students about a prank to staple Person D’s calendar to her desk and to annoy Person D by messing up her desk.

On September 4, 2018, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline and suspended him for twenty (20) days without pay. The Board subsequently issued the Member a revised letter reducing the suspension to twelve (12) days without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s revised discipline letter dated September 4, 2018.
The Member has no prior history of complaints and/or discipline at the College.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(10), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to any of the allegations, facts or findings and is without prejudice to him in any other civil, criminal, administrative or other proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. In relation to subsection 1(7.1), College Counsel stated there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of physical abuse. The Panel granted these requests.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 14, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(10), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct, which included threatening students and engaging in physically intimidating behaviour in class.

9The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member yelled at students, regularly swore at them, and used inappropriate language in the classroom. In one instance, the Member told a student that he would physically hit him if he did not “shut up”. Teachers must always be respectful and composed in their interactions with students, even in the face of challenging student behaviour. Yelling, using profanity and threatening students is inappropriate and amounts to verbal abuse of students by the Member.

10The Member psychologically or emotionally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In addition to the Member’s inappropriate conduct described above, the Member also engaged in physically intimidating behaviour in the classroom. Such conduct included kicking a desk in the classroom, threatening to throw a stapler at students and telling students that the Member threw staplers at people before, and kicking a desk in the classroom when the Member became upset that a student had requested to complete a presentation at another time. The Member’s conduct made students uncomfortable and fearful. As such, the Member’s conduct amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.

11The Member failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to subsection 1(10) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By failing to mark and return submitted tests and assignments to students, the Member breached this provision. Additionally, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation under this subsection.

12The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standard of “Care” and “Respect” and the standards of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and “Professional Practice”. Members are required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. They are also required to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. Furthermore, they are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. Additionally, they must use appropriate pedagogy, assessment and evaluation in planning for and responding to the needs of individual students and learning.

13By yelling and threatening students as well as engaging in physically intimidating behaviour in class, which made students feel uncomfortable and fearful, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being and was disrespectful towards them. Engaging in threatening and physically intimidating conduct is also incompatible with the expectation that teachers will create a safe and supportive learning environment. Furthermore, by failing to provide appropriate instruction, assessment, guidance and feedback to students which included failing to mark and return submitted tests to students, the Member did not respond to the needs of students, breaching therefore the standard of “Professional Practice”. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the standards of the teaching profession.

14The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) requires teachers to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. By engaging in threatening and physically intimidating behaviour as described above, the Member created an environment which would have been discouraging to students. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that members of the teaching profession must act as positive role models. By repeatedly displaying aggressive behaviour in the classroom, the Member acted as a poor role model. For instance, the incident where the Member told a student, in front of class, that he would physically hit him if he did not “shut up” was an opportunity for the Member to demonstrate restraint in the face of challenging student behaviour. By instead telling the student that he would resort to physical violence, the Member acted as a poor role model and therefore failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.

15The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers must always use appropriate methods to manage their classroom and must keep their composure, even in the face of challenging student behaviour. It was unacceptable for the Member to yell, swear and engage in threatening as well as physically intimidating behaviour towards students. Furthermore, the Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by using the School’s internet account and computer to do online shopping during instructional time and by making inappropriate comments about his colleagues and the administration to students. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings by the Member and casts doubt on his ability to practise the profession in the best interests of students and in an ethical manner. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By engaging in threatening and physically intimidating behaviour in class, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust which students, parents and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY Decision

17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 14, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and anger management, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.⁴ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel : Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Robinson 2020 ONOCT 161, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gulamhusein 2019 ONOCT 101.

19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are (1) the multiple instances of the Member’s inappropriate behaviour towards students; (2) the Member’s conduct caused emotional harm to students, and (3) the physically intimidating nature of the Member’s conduct in class. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has no prior history of complaints and/or discipline at the College. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct as described above warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession must always use appropriate means to manage their classroom and most certainly without having recourse to aggressive behaviour. They must also provide a safe and supportive environment for students. The Member repeatedly failed to do so by yelling, swearing and engaging in physically intimidating behaviour towards students. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on April 29, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

22The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to manage his classroom without having recourse to physically intimidating behaviour and also how to be respectful towards students and colleagues.

23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: April 14, 2022

Élaine Legault

Chair, Discipline Panel